Photo Editing

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

A good photo requires minimal editing, a bad photo cannot be saved by extensive editing.

MontanaDave has hit on the quintessential point - you need to be the best photographer you can be before turning to post. Note: Some of us refer to the use of an image editor as "post," short for "post-production." That term comes originally from film and video production, but with the rise of digital photography and image editors it is very applicable in still photography.

Many image problems cannot easily be fixed, or cannot be fixed at all, in post. One general class of pretty much unfixable problems is having too much or too little depth of field. A digital camera with a good electronic viewfinder (screen) is invaluable because you can view the image immediately and take additional photos with different settings to correct initial problems. In addition, the electronic viewfinder may be able to overlay tools on the screen when you are reviewing photos to help you to find and correct problems. The viewfinder tool which I normally have turned on during review (because I often use it) is a histogram.

In short, continue to work on getting the best possible photo in-camera while you are mastering an image editor.

 

[AlanKlein108 24]

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a ...

 

[Ysarex112 106]

MontanaDave has hit on the quintessential point - you need to be the best photographer you can be before turning to post. Note: Some of us refer to the use of an image editor as "post," short for "post-production." That term comes originally from film and video production, but with the rise of digital photography and image editors it is very applicable in still photography.

Many image problems cannot easily be fixed, or cannot be fixed at all, in post. One general class of pretty much unfixable problems is having too much or too little depth of field. A digital camera with a good electronic viewfinder (screen) is invaluable because you can view the image immediately and take additional photos with different settings to correct initial problems. In addition, the electronic viewfinder may be able to overlay tools on the screen when you are reviewing photos to help you to find and correct problems. The viewfinder tool which I normally have turned on during review (because I often use it) is a histogram.

In short, continue to work on getting the best possible photo in-camera while you are mastering an image editor.

That gets at my earlier question about how do you know if the photo is good or bad before you edit it, and you're saying judge the camera generated image that you can see/review with the electronic viewfinder. So I recently took this photo which I have edited.

But this is the camera generated JPEG that resulted from my adjustment of the camera's metered exposure by +1.7 EC.

Judging by what the camera did with the exposure I set you'd think I overexposed the photo, but my exposure was in fact best possible -- perfect. Using the camera output image as a source to determine if the photo is good or bad has some potential pitfalls -- heaven forbid that I would have underexposed my camera's sensor by 1.7 stops. That would have made a better camera JPEG but a worse photo.

 

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

Judging by what the camera did with the exposure I set you'd think I overexposed the photo, but my exposure was in fact best possible -- perfect.

If it was perfect then, when reviewing the image on the screen right after you took it, what you saw on the screen would have looked much like the first image. The only logical conclusion is that that photo was indeed overexposed. Note that having a histogram imposed during review would easily show if an image is overexposed.

Why did you think that your exposure was perfect? Note that the way that a camera internally converts the RAW image to JPG can vary from model to model. I always shoot RAW. SD cards are relatively cheap, so I have no need to convert to JPG in the camera to maximize storage. I always have a 64 GB card in the camera and a second formatted 64 GB card in the camera bag. If I have to convert am image to JPG to put it in a web site I do so in the Pentax Digital Camera Utility (a Pentax-branded version of Silkypix).

 

[smoke665]

Experience.

If thats the case then experienced people should have only good SOOC.

 

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

If thats the case then experienced people should have only good SOOC.

No, it is just that more experienced photographers are more likely to have good images straight out of the camera. Nothing is guaranteed in photography. Although my images sometimes need post, many of them are taken with an eye toward illustrating web pages (for cemeteries, old mills, covered bridges, and vintage electronic instrumentation) and are good enough SOOC without post.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

If it was perfect then, when reviewing the image on the screen right after you took it, what you saw on the screen would have looked much like the first image. The only logical conclusion is that that photo was indeed overexposed.

By the way, welcome to TPF!
The camera generated JPEG was way too light which would be an expected result of overexposure. So if the camera JPEG appears overexposed does that mean the raw file is likewise overexposed? I never want, use, or save camera JPEGs. I only save and edit raw files. The raw file for that photo is not overexposed -- the exposure is perfect.

Note that having a histogram imposed during review would easily show if an image is overexposed.

Why did you think that your exposure was perfect?

I didn't think it was perfect I knew it was perfect because I set it to be perfect. Since I only save raw files I define a perfect exposure as full utilization of the camera's sensor. Can't always do that but when you can you get the best possible IQ -- as much exposure as the sensor can handle = lowest SNR = best IQ. Set the brightest diffuse highlight in the scene at the sensor's saturation threshold and click -- perfect. Most of my camera JPEGs are nuked to h*ll wastebasket fodder. The question of course is begged if you're getting good looking camera JPEGs what are you getting in the way of raw files?

Here's the histogram for that photo's raw file. The camera has a 12 bit ADC so the MAX theoretical value it can store is 4096, I've got the green channels exactly at threshold.

Note that the way that a camera internally converts the RAW image to JPG can vary from model to model. I always shoot RAW. SD cards are relatively cheap, so I have no need to convert to JPG in the camera to maximize storage. I always have a 64 GB card in the camera and a second formatted 64 GB card in the camera bag. If I have to convert am image to JPG to put it in a web site I do so in the Pentax Digital Camera Utility (a Pentax-branded version of Silkypix).

 

[smoke665]

No, it is just that more experienced photographers are more likely to have good images straight out of the camera. Nothing is guaranteed in photography. Although my images sometimes need post, many of them are taken with an eye toward illustrating web pages (for cemeteries, old mills, covered bridges, and vintage electronic instrumentation) and are good enough SOOC without post.

Your response was to Joe's question, how do you tell pre-post if you have a good image. Experience is exactly what he used in his above example to set his exposure for the raw file to be used post, and experience told him that what he was seeing on his preview, was not the image he would be working with.

I follow the same path as Joe, I know from "experience" that I can overexpose "according to the histogram" by at least a half stop or more. Doing so will give me the best possible sensor exposure/SNR. Camera algorithms are set to give the best possible JPEG image based on an 18% gray exposure value. However the reflective value of real life varies just like in Joe's example above. Try shooting a snow landscape or sand beach. If you underexpose the sensor, you'll likely run the risk of topping out in the shadows, leaving no details to recover only noise.

 

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

Most of my camera JPEGs are nuked to h*ll wastebasket fodder.

I never look at an in-camera JPG. I only look at RAW files.

 

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

I know from "experience" that I can overexpose "according to the histogram" by at least a half stop or more.

I usually bracket exposures, which helps to overcome overexposures or underexposures.

 

[smoke665]

Many image problems cannot easily be fixed, or cannot be fixed at all, in post. One general class of pretty much unfixable problems is having too much or too little depth of field

Not true. The old adage "garbage in, garbage out", somewhat applies as the better your beginning image the better your final edit, but just about anything can be fixed post today. The depth of field adjustment is now a quick fix in LR with their new AI features, or has been in PS with Field Blur, or tilt shift. Even blown highlights can be cloned out or replaced. It's more a question of how much time you want to spend.

 

[smoke665]

I usually bracket exposures, which helps to overcome overexposures or underexposures.

Bracketing can overcome dynamic range issues which exceed the camera capabilities, but bracketing doesn't address getting a full sensor.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

I never look at an in-camera JPG. I only look at RAW files.

But you're giving advice to people to look at the camera JPEGs when they're taking photos. On the camera you can only look at the camera JPEG.

 

[AlanKlein108 24]

Correct exposure just makes a photo presentable. You can't approve content with PS. Either you got it or you don't.

 

[smoke665]

In reading through the comments I'm reminded that there are always little bits of truth, little bits of speculation, and even a few bits of false ideas.

An earlier comments said "good images require minimal editing", well yes but, the key is what is acceptable in the final image. A wise man once told me that the work involved in the last little bit out of an images may have the least noticeable effect on it, but elevate the image from good to excellent. If you're satisfied with an image as is great, but all "good" images can be improved.

Another comment touted "experience" as the key to knowing if an image was good. I'd say "experience" is more important in knowing how to set your exposure for the final image you want. In most cases I'd strive to completely fill the sensor, but in this example my goal was to best illustrate the texture of these cotton bolls. I knew the whites would be touchy, and my darkest shadow areas were devoid of any details. So I choose to protect the whites. Here's the original image.

As you can see from the screenshot of the histogram, it's a full stop under.

I did that because I needed room to set the White point, I knew the deepest shadows had no detail to preserve, and I had specific editing I wanted to do to enhance the cotton texture. The final

and a screen shot of the new histogram

So, while the histogram is useful, it's not necessarily the final decision on a good or bad image, and while I could have exposed for a full exposure, it would not have provided the same result of the final image which was to show the texture of a white cotton boll.